American Insurance Association et, al. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Development et, al.

Case Updates

The district court vacated the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Disparate-Impact Rule holding that the rule is improper because HUD’s authority under the FHA is limited to regulating only intentional discrimination.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate HUD’s Disparate-Impact Rule. The Chamber pointed out in its brief that disparate-impact claims frequently challenge legitimate, neutral standards that are applied uniformly to all consumers and are a critical component of responsible business decisions. Through this rule, HUD discards the Supreme Court precedent in order to simplify disparate-impact litigation in favor of a subjective standard that threatens lenders with undue litigation costs and reputational harm and injects unnecessary uncertainty into this area of the law. The Chamber argues that HUD had no statutory basis to take such a step and the rule should be vacated.

Carter G. Phillips, Brian P. Morrissey and Jeremy M. Bylund of Sidley Austin, LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center.